FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Assassination and the Constitution

Does the Executive Branch—including, specifically, the Pentagon and the CIA—possess unreviewable power under the US Constitution to carry out targeted killings of Americans overseas?

A lawsuit filed this morning by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights poses the question, one that is hardly hypothetical.  The plaintiffs in the case, Nasser al-Aulaqi and Sarah Khan, are close relatives of three American citizens who were killed in US drone strikes last year.

The suit covers much of the same ground raised in a previous suit, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, which was brought by Nasser al-Aulaqi in 2010.  That prior case, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, sought to prevent the killing of al-Aulaqi’s son, Anwar al-Aulaqi; the current case seeks damages for his death, as well as for the deaths of two other Americans.

Like its predecessor, the lawsuit makes the claim that, outside of armed conflict, the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee of due process of law bars targeted killings except as a last resort to avert a “concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety.” It also asserts that, whatever the context, the government must take all possible steps to avoid harming civilian bystanders when it uses lethal force.

But while the case directly relates to the government’s power to kill, it also raises challenging questions for democracy.  At stake is not only whether US security forces can engage in targeted killings outside of armed conflict, but also whether they can do so via a secret process, with no judicial scrutiny, and no real possibility of an informed public debate.

A Death Foretold

Two of the three US citizens whose killings are at issue, Samir Khan and Anwar al-Aulaqi, were killed in a US drone strike in Yemen in September 2011.  The strike apparently targeted al-Aulaqi, who the US claimed was a terrorist operative, but it also killed at least three other people, including Khan.

Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, the third American to be killed in Yemen last year, was Anwar al-Aulaqi’s 16-year-old son.  He was killed two weeks after his father, in a drone strike that was said to have been aimed at an Egyptian terrorist suspect but that instead killed at least seven other people.

Anwar al-Aulaqi’s killing was no surprise.  A Muslim cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship, al-Aulaqi was reportedly put on a CIA/military “kill list” sometime before January 2010.  Although he was never formally charged with a crime, US officials claimed that al-Aulaqi played an operational role in the local Al Qaeda affiliate, helping organize “training camps in Yemen in support of acts of terrorism” and providing instructions to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber.

Al-Aulaqi’s father Nasser filed suit in US court in August 2010 to try to prevent his son’s killing.  As the court adjudicating the suit pointed out, it was “unique and extraordinary,” raising crucially important questions about the scope of executive power, the meaning of constitutional protections against the deprivation of life without due process, and the breadth of the post-9/11 legal framework.

Yet the court never reached these substantive issues.  Ruling that Nasser al-Aulaqi had no legal right to stand up for his son, and that the case raised “political questions” not subject to judicial scrutiny, the court dismissed the suit.

The end result, as the court acknowledged in a profoundly understated phrase near the end of its opinion, is “somewhat unsettling”: there are circumstances, whose scope remains unclear, in which the Executive has unilateral power to kill US citizens overseas.

Less than ten months after the court issued its ruling, al-Aulaqi was dead.

Political Questions without Political Accountability

In the 2010 al-Aulaqi suit, the court made much of the fact that the younger al-Aulaqi had not chosen to bring the suit himself. “Plaintiff has failed to provide an adequate explanation for his son’s inability to appear on his own behalf,” the court explained, asserting that this omission was “fatal” to the success of the suit (in hindsight, perhaps not the best choice of words).

With Anwar al-Aulaqi’s death, this barrier to the litigation is gone.  The key obstacle that the present suit will face is the political question doctrine, codified in such precedents as Baker v. CarrGilligan v. Morgan, and El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States.

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, dismissing a case on political question grounds in 2005, asserted that in matters of foreign policy and national security, the question of whether “drastic” and possibly abusive measures should be taken “is not the stuff of adjudication, but of policymaking.” In theory, the political question doctrine keeps policy decisions in the hands of those who are, as the al-Aulaqi court emphasized, “most politically accountable for making them.”

Yet political accountability presupposes public access to information. The public cannot meaningfully evaluate a policy whose contours are secret; nor can it make fair judgments as to the culpability of individual terrorist suspects without any real knowledge of the evidence against them.  Democracy cannot exist without government transparency; hence we have congressional hearings, freedom of information laws, and public trials.

With the government’s targeted killing policy, we have the opposite of transparency: secret legal memos, secret evidence and a secret decision-making process. Indeed, a striking characteristic of the complaint that was filed this morning is the number of claims that are made “upon information and belief,” rather than as straight allegations.  Hard information about the substance of US targeting policies is scant.

As much as it is a claim for civil damages, the present case is a plea for government transparency.  Right now, the government has it both ways.  Not only have its policies been free of judicial scrutiny, they have been protected from meaningful public debate.

Joanne Mariner is the director of Hunter College’s Human Rights Program.  She is an expert on human rights, counterterrorism, and international humanitarian law. She is the author of the Human Rights Watch report, No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons

This column previously appeared on Justia’s Verdict.

More articles by:

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

June 18, 2018
Paul Street
Denuclearize the United States? An Unthinkable Thought
John Pilger
Bring Julian Assange Home
Conn Hallinan
The Spanish Labyrinth
Patrick Cockburn
Attacking Hodeidah is a Deliberate Act of Cruelty by the Trump Administration
Gary Leupp
Trump Gives Bibi Whatever He Wants
Thomas Knapp
Child Abductions: A Conversation It’s Hard to Believe We’re Even Having
Robert Fisk
I Spoke to Palestinians Who Still Hold the Keys to Homes They Fled Decades Ago – Many are Still Determined to Return
Steve Early
Requiem for a Steelworker: Mon Valley Memories of Oil Can Eddie
Jim Scheff
Protect Our National Forests From an Increase in Logging
Adam Parsons
Reclaiming the UN’s Radical Vision of Global Economic Justice
Dean Baker
Manufacturing Production Falls in May and No One Notices
Laura Flanders
Bottom-Up Wins in Virginia’s Primaries
Binoy Kampmark
The Anguish for Lost Buildings: Embers and Death at the Victoria Park Hotel
Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
Joyce Nelson
The NED’s Useful Idiots
Lindsay Koshgarian
Trump’s Giving Diplomacy a Chance. His Critics Should, Too
Louis Proyect
American Nativism: From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Trump
Stan Malinowitz
On the Elections in Colombia
Camilo Mejia
Open Letter to Amnesty International on Nicaragua From a Former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience
David Krieger
An Assessment of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit
Jonah Raskin
Cannabis in California: a Report From Sacramento
Josh Hoxie
Just How Rich Are the Ultra Rich?
CJ Hopkins
Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse
Mona Younis
We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty
Dean Baker
Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong
James Munson
Trading Places: the Other 1% and the .001% Who Won’t Save Them
Rivera Sun
Stop Crony Capitalism: Protect the Net!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail